Search

Background: A prior study revealed a paucity of surgical research in the 5 top-rated general surgery journals for 1998. The hypothesis of the current study was that a large amount of surgical research was published in other journals. Methods: In all, 15 research journals and 9 surgery specialty journals were reviewed for basic research, funded clinical studies, randomized clinical trials, and drug trials. The funding sources and the surgeon''s role were recorded. The findings were compared with research published in the previously studied 5 journals in 1998 and 2005. Results: Of 6,016 papers in the research and surgery specialty journals, 19% were research, of which 76% were basic research. Funding from 1,101 sources was provided to 825 studies (70%). Seventy-four percent of funded studies were basic research. Government was the source for 46% of grants, private for 41%, and industry for 13%. A surgeon was the sole or senior author in 72% of studies. A total of 1,172 research articles were published in the research and surgery specialty journals in 1998. In comparison, 369 research papers were published in the general surgery journals in 1998 and 306 papers were published in 2005. With respect to the type of research, there were 896 basic research papers in the research and specialty journals in 1998, 200 such papers in the general surgery journals in 1998, and 164 in 2005. There were 87 randomized trials in the research and the surgery specialty journals in 1998, 46 such papers in the general surgery journals in 1998, and 29 in 2005. Conclusion: A 3-fold greater volume of surgical research and more than a 4-fold greater volume of basic research was found in the research and the surgical specialty journals than in the general surgical journals in 1998, and this margin is increased when compared with the data for 2005. Consideration of only the general surgical journals greatly underestimates the surgical research being conducted. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: This review examines the surgical and psychological literature on surgeons'' intraoperative non-technical skills. These are the critical cognitive and interpersonal skills that complement surgeons'' technical abilities. The objectives of this paper are (1) to identify the non-technical skills required by surgeons in the operating room and (2) assess the behavioral marker systems that have been developed for rating surgeons'' non-technical skills. Methods: A literature search was conducted against a set of inclusion criteria. Databases searched included BioMed Central, Medline, EDINA BIOSIS, Web-of-Knowledge, PsychLit, and ScienceDirect. Results: A number of “core” categories of non-technical skills were identified from 4 sources of data: questionnaire and interview studies, observational studies, adverse event analyses, and the surgical education/competence assessment literature. The main skill categories were communication, teamwork, leadership, and decision making. The existing frameworks used to measure surgeons'' non-technical skills were found to be deficient in terms of either their psychometric properties or suitability for rating the full range of skills in individual surgeons. Conclusions: Further work is required to develop a valid taxonomy of individual surgeons'' non-technical skills for training and feedback. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]